little detail: ebay hasn't *always* claimed they got 28.4 % (which is closer to 30% than 25%) , they initially claimed it was "approximately 25%" (ebaypress release at the time), which fit Craig's/craigslist's story. I find it intriguing that according to the complaint, Craig&Jim dilutedebay to 25.01% (which definitely qualifies as "approximately 25%" as ebay initially said...) D.just to clarify: according to ebay's complaint, craigslist did subsequent dilutions of ebay's share of craigslist: the dilution to 25.01% came about in 2005 when employees were given stock options(top of 2nd page with a footnoted eplanation); further dilution to under 25% happened more recently and prompted ebay's law suit.

MORE: Thanks for commenting, Anonymous! I didn't publish it because I really think we need to wait and see... watch the fight :)... hear everybody out... who knows, a miracle might happen *lol* (as I was saying, it should be pretty entertaining...) D.

re: Craig: The links are valid; how does one get this corrected? (...) "Thanks, I see the correction!"

this is an embarrassment for Wikipedia and for Jimmy for having allowed it (I must assume he's well aware of it) -- might just as well save themselves some time and trouble and just plain ask Craig what would he like the page to include and not include...

Delia

P.S. hmmm... I can't help but wonder if Craig "paid up" for Jimmy's help... (the way Rachel Marsden appears to have had...) D.

Friday, April 25, 2008

again... he made it a public matter when he talked about it to the press; it's certainly of interest to the public if he lied about it...

the Wikipedia editor's position is bizarre... I mean, not having a reliable source would have been a perfectly good reason at this point but keeping the whole issue of Craig having lied about it - if this is what's going on -- off Wikipedia because... well... he's known for founding "craigslist"! and how would having lied about his sexual orientation help?*lol* well, it would actually hurt! both Craig's image and the image of craigslist... but what is Wikipedia? a PR-service for those profiled?

re: (under "sexual preference") It's hard to see that help the article, even if sourced. He's best known as the founder of craigslist; how would his sexual orientation benefit that? —EncMstr 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC) -- EncMstr

Thursday, April 24, 2008

why isn't the press getting ebay's side of the story?... most articles let Jim have the last word...

found one exception

Reuters: (10th paragraph) An eBay spokeswoman said the disputed board actions concerned "corporate governance issues" and did not involve Kijiji. (this appears to be countering some of Jim's wild speculation)

Delia

P.S. Gina's article is not bad overall but she appears to be under Craig/craigslist's spell (like a whole lot of other female reporters... and not only female): (4th paragraph) "Craig Newmark, who runs the company in a famously open-minded style"--> this is a subjective, personal, take on things... (not an objective observation) so it really has no purpose in a report like this... (except to embarrass the writer... and the wire service...) D.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

re: Jim: "Ensuring the future well-being of craigslist and the craigslist community is admittedly very important to us."

did craigslist issue more shares? (and thus dilute ebay) -- if so it looks like they can't possibly win... not while raking in estimated $100 mill or so this year alone while spending precious little... (what kind of "sound financial reason" could they realistically claim to have had? -- good post otherwise...)

...that shaving 10% off the original 28.4% share does bring ebay much closer to ... the approximately 25% they initially said they got! (25.56%) -- actually, it would be even closer if they would give just a tinny little bit more back... *lol*

Delia

P.S. jokes aside, was this a coincidence or did craigslist plan it all along? (after the "changes" ebay's story and craigslist's story pretty much agree... if ebay would have just shut up... there would have been nothing on hand to question craigslist's story -- was craigslist counting on this?)

(to present the number of shares they acquired so that it could neatly fit craigslist's story):

is this the "hostility" Jim talks about?

ebay's press release on the deal back in 2004 said they acquired approximately 25% (which was unnecessarily imprecise, appearing to have served no other purpose than to support craigslist's story...)

Delia

P.S. ebay is currently saying the actual figure was really 28.4%...(closer to 30% than 25%) which implicitly brings Craig's story into question --> again, shortly after the deal Craig saidebay had ONLY 25% (and craigslist had said this was the percentage the former shareholder sold to ebay)

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

MORE: corrected prior mistakes (left the Forbes link in just so it makes some sense...: "Ebay holds a minority ownership interest stake of 28.4% in craigslist"[my emphasis]; this clearly implies this is the percentage ebay currently holds, AFTER the dilution if that's what happened... Jim is vague, ambiguous and melodramatic again... without giving any facts whatsoever... just take a look at Jim's "response" -- in the addendum, in the body of the entry -- to the one relevant question in the comments: did they dilute ebay's shares? "To be perfectly clear, Ebay’s stake in craigslist has not been unfairly diluted as they have claimed." ---> not at all clear... all he's saying is that ... they didn't do it unfairly... which is for the court to decide... the question had been if they diluted the shares... not if they acknowledge they did it unfairly... Alexander Muse: " Did you dilute the minority shareholders? ") D.

ERRATA (please read the comments!) :

Hi, Anonymous!

I tracked down the ebay release just before seeing your comment. (I initially thought Forbes was reliable enough as a source...my bad!) but anyways... the contradiction remains: craigslist claimed ebay acquired only 25% of craigslist in 2004, ebay says it was 28.4%... right after the ebay acqusition Craig specifically said ebay had ONLY 25 %... this core contradiction remains regardless of the details of the dilution...

Delia

MORE: ok, I better go to bed... (sorry if it was a bit confusing -- I just tried very hard to be as fair as possible -- it should be reasonably clear by now... let me know if it's not... thanks!) D.

STILL MORE: Craig retold the 25% story less than a month ago to Sarah Lacy... (0.52 time mark: Sarah:"so ebay owns 25% of craigslist..." Craig: "yes") --> ebay says their shares got diluted bymore than 10%. So how could have ebay possibly had 25% in March? NOT strictly impossible but it appears very, very improbable... (they would have had to start with 25% in August of 2004, as Craig said, recently acquire more -- Craig's been telling his story unchanged since 2004 -- than get diluted to 25% or quickly sell the acquired amount... just in time for Craig's interview... ) D.

EVEN MORE: the Chron appears to be so gullible that it makes craigslist's words fit the facts... after the fact --> "In August 2004, eBay acquired a 28.4 percent stake in Craigslist when it bought shares from a former employee" (beginning of 8th paragraph) -- if they would have bothered to check they would have seen that was not what Craig said.... they would have also noticed the discrepancy between 25% and 28.5%

... and Owen's story sounds even more plausible (that Phillip Knowlton was forced to sell because Craig and Jim were squeezing him out by diluting his shares): ebay is charging that craigslist has been illegally diluting ebay's shares...

Delia

P.S. surprisingly, people -- even Owen -- don't seem to realize that ebay holding 28.4% shares in craigslist (1st sentence of 2nd paragraph) contradicts Craig's story. He said the craigslist former employee sold 25% to ebay-- Craig was also specifically asked on the ebay and craigslist forum if he sold any of his shares to ebay at the time... he said no... so... how did ebay end-up with more than 25% of craigslist? Did Craig lie or did someone else, such as Nancy Melone, also sell shares to ebay? if so... did she do it at the same time? (again, that would mean Craig lied) or later on?

(on the state of Connecticut, for instance... but it's bound to be similar all over the place)

as far as I can tell craigslist isn't providing anything that isn't already there... it's just putting things on the internet and walks away with loads of millions (especially in the long run) -- money that isn't benefiting the state of Connecticut (or any other place where craigslist exists) at all...

don't the people of Connecticut get some free value out of it? it appears that such gains are only at the individual level -- not when considering the community as a whole -- and for trivial things (e.g. a person can get rid of a couch by posting it on craigslist instead of donating it to Goodwill; a business owner can find employees without placing an ad in the newspaper and thus helping support local journalism), and only for as long as it is in craigslist's interest not to charge... (#4)

In the mean time news organizations will be negatively impacted, crime will become easier to commit (some of it, such as prostitution, will be imported from out of state) and the back-market-like alternative to regulated business (bye bye non discrimination for instance) is allowed to flourish... --> so what is the overall long-term impact on the places where craigslist exists? I would think it's bound to be negative!

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

MORE: more non-sense from craigslist on the official craigslist blog (craigslist should be prevented from continuing to use the dot org domain and making it difficult for people to realize it has been for profit -- NOT a dot org -- for a very long time...) D....re: " Craigslist is a law-abiding company that is trying very hard to do the right thing, while also trying very hard to do the right thing, and the world at large," he said. "Craigslist does not have tens of thousands of employees, as do other large internet sites. The lack of this overhead is the reason that craigslist can provide its valuable public services at such low cost and without paid advertising." (2nd paragraph under "law-abiding")

#1. "Craigslist is a law-abiding company" --> that remains to be seen, Blumenthal said he will look into legal means of making craigslist effectively control their prostitution problem and there are plenty of other legal issues that could be raised

#2. "trying very hard to do the right thing" --> by self-handicaping themselves and "saving" more or less 100 million this year??? while continuing to claim to be a "community service"? (they should have stayed a non-profit, a foundation, and used that money to address the serious problems and provide adequate customer service and improvements to the community that has built craigslist and continues to make it work)

#3. "providing a very valuable free public service for the people of Connecticut" [my emphasis] --> right! untill the Conecticut market will hit critical mass and then... they'll start charging! (for that "public service") ... just see what happened with the 11 or so cities that already hit critical mass for jobs and with New York City for real estate...

#4. "Craigslist does not have tens of thousands of employees, as do other large internet sites. The lack of this overhead is the reason that craigslist can provide its valuable public services at such low cost and without paid advertising" --> Hahaha... rather, the lack of employing and adequate number of people is the reason that craigslist can... walk away with around $100 million this year! while continuing to claim to be a "public service" and providing as little customer service and improvements as they can get away with...

Delia

P.S. I hope Blumenthal sees right through all that BS and does something about it... D.

Friday, April 11, 2008

he is calling for *others* to donate to charity? for having profited... (last paragraph) -- the profit margins of those for-profitsthat never claimed to be anything else are probably minuscule when compared with craigslist's... (those suckers actually have an adequate number of employees that actually get things done, you know...)

Delia

P.S. is Jim delusional or he just thinks the craigslist BS will always prevail? (2nd half of 2nd paragraph from bottom) right! the poor 25 employees that are doing everythingall the time... (no matter that they cannot possibly get even basic things done (the comments)... as long as craigslist claims they do there are plenty of dummies who will print that it's true! craigslist said it! who are we to question? ours is not to question why -- ours is just to... suck-up and print! ... so why would Jim ever stop repeating that non-sense?) D.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

this is nuts! somebody should stop them from continuing to make it very difficult for people to realize they are for profit! if you enter the address where the official blog was started: http://blog.craigslist.com/ you get a very odd message:" You've reached craigslist's nonprofit webserver." what??? on the dot com domain? and they moved the official blog to the dot org domain: http://blog.craigslist.org/ -- how much more pathetic can they get? D.

I just thought you might want to keep in mind that craigslist has turned for profit *way back* and shouldn’t really have a claim to any dot org domain, including yours.

Delia

P.S. Unfortunately, the dot org domain is still unregulated (but this shouldn’t stop you from acquiring it before them as you did) so they get away with redirecting traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org continuing to give the appearance that they are still a non-profit — a whole lot of people appear to be fooled by this (just don’t know craigslist is not a non-profit and hasn’t been that for a very long time). Craigslist should have lost all claims to the dot org domain when it turned for profit.

Craigslist shouldn't have any claim to the craigslistblog.org domain and should have lost all claims to the craigslist.org domain when they turned for profit, *way back*, (unfortunately the dot org domain remains unregulated so craigslist still gets away with redirecting traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org continuing to give the appearance that craigslist is still a non-profit).

Delia(http://mathewingram.disqus.com/craiglist_vs_craigslist_blogger_round_three_46/#)....Why would they? They are NOT a dot org -- they are for profit, so they are a dot com; unfortunately the dot org designation is still not regulated so craigslist is still getting away with using the craigslist.org domain (it actually redirects the traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org giving the appearance that it is still a non-profit) ... but that shouldn't give any rights to the craigslistblog.org... craigslist should have lost its right to the craigslist.org domain once it turned for profit.

Delia

P.S. Wondering if this was a consideration when EFF considered offering help to Tim White (2nd paragraph from bottom)

STILL MORE: Jim is backpaddling... badly... at least part of his story (having been friendly at all: 9th, 10th and 11th paragraphs) appears to be made up... Tim was also disputing Jim's claim that he took his ads off before media attention and that he intended to use deceptive ads from craigslist's competitors -- appearently, Google's Adsense decides what ads will appear on the blog with the blogger having no choice in the matter once she/he agrees to use ads (entry appears to be removed as of the morning of April 6th -- is Tim updating it?). D.

MORE: funny thing: craigslist had to use the dot com domain name (as it would have had to do anyways if the dot org domain would be regulated, as it should be) because a guy Tim White already started a craigslistblog.org --> Valleywag has a good entry and comments on this

MORE: again, Michael Arrington's post is disappointing... I'm having a hard time believing he isn't getting it... is he just disingenuous? D....what defamation?

"Blumenthal says he has yet to hear back from Craigslist since sending his letter but in response to their statement, he said the personal-ad feature 'increases traffic and generates a number of users [to the site], which in turn enhances their revenue. If they have additional information, we would be happy to review that.' (yeah, pretty much what I thought...)

Just think about it... how many employees does craigslist have? for how many users? how much money is it "saving" each year by refusing to hire an adequate number of people? where does all that money go and at what cost to the community that built craigslist and continues to make it work?

These are the sort of issues I would have loved to read about. Maybe in your next post about craigslist?:)

take advantage of craigslist'sAchilles' hill! flood the tinny craigslist staff with removal requests for a huge number of illegal ads (for prostitution, but could be other things too... as many as it would take... from different cities, also, if needed -- as long as the ads are clearly illegal, craigslist is legally obligated to remove them -- only they can't possibly do it given the tinny staff... so unless they would hire people for this purpose, they would be clearly at fault... legally...)